craigkillie Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 21 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: Was it Aberdeen that had two seasons on the spin where they were given 18 Home and 20 Away fixtures, and the League just shrugged? No, this has never happened, in fact Aberdeen have been a net beneficiary of the uneven fixtures. 2001/02 - St Johnstone (20), Livingston (18) 2004/05 - Inverness CT (20), Aberdeen (18) 2005/06 - Aberdeen (20), Motherwell (20), Inverness CT (18), Dunfermline (18) 2006/07 - Falkirk (20), Kilmarnock (18) 2007/08 - Aberdeen (20), Gretna (18)* 2009/10 - Aberdeen (20), Motherwell (18) 2011/12 - Kilmarnock (20), St Johnstone (18) 2013/14 - Hibernian (20), Aberdeen (18) 2014/15 - Dundee (20), Kilmarnock (18) 2016/17 - Partick Thistle (20), Ross County (18) 2017/18 - Motherwell (20), Hearts (18) +1 Aberdeen (20 x 3, 18 x 2) +1 Dundee (20 x 1) +1 Falkirk (20 x 1) +1 Hibernian (20 x 1) +1 Motherwell (20 x 2, 18 x 1) +1 Partick Thistle (20 x 1) 0 Celtic 0 Dundee United 0 Hamilton 0 Inverness CT (20 x 1, 18 x 1) 0 Rangers 0 St Johnstone (20 x 1, 18 x 1) 0 St Mirren -1 Dunfermline (18 x 1) -1 Gretna (18 x 1)* -1 Hearts (18 x 1) -1 Kilmarnock (20 x 1, 18 x 2) -1 Livingston (18 x 1) -1 Ross County (18 x 1) *In Gretna's case, it was reported this was deliberate since home games were costing them money and it wasn't clear they would definitely fulfil all their fixtures. Someone would have needed to lose a home game, so it made sense to be them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 19 minutes ago, craigkillie said: No, this has never happened, in fact Aberdeen have been a net beneficiary of the uneven fixtures. There was some stooshie a while back about post-split fixtures being announced, and some team being handed an obviously ridiculous set of fixtures that were cobbled together to suit one of the arse-cheeks. Might no have been Aberdeen, but I'm sure it was something like they were expected to play 21 Away fixtures, or 3x trips to Parkhead and 3x trips to Ibrox. I can't remember any of the details, but I'm 100% certain I'm correct in recalling the uproar it created. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 31 minutes ago, craigkillie said: No, this has never happened, in fact Aberdeen have been a net beneficiary of the uneven fixtures. 2001/02 - St Johnstone (20), Livingston (18) 2004/05 - Inverness CT (20), Aberdeen (18) 2005/06 - Aberdeen (20), Motherwell (20), Inverness CT (18), Dunfermline (18) 2006/07 - Falkirk (20), Kilmarnock (18) 2007/08 - Aberdeen (20), Gretna (18)* 2009/10 - Aberdeen (20), Motherwell (18) 2011/12 - Kilmarnock (20), St Johnstone (18) 2013/14 - Hibernian (20), Aberdeen (18) 2014/15 - Dundee (20), Kilmarnock (18) 2016/17 - Partick Thistle (20), Ross County (18) 2017/18 - Motherwell (20), Hearts (18) +1 Aberdeen (20 x 3, 18 x 2) +1 Dundee (20 x 1) +1 Falkirk (20 x 1) +1 Hibernian (20 x 1) +1 Motherwell (20 x 2, 18 x 1) +1 Partick Thistle (20 x 1) 0 Celtic 0 Dundee United 0 Hamilton 0 Inverness CT (20 x 1, 18 x 1) 0 Rangers 0 St Johnstone (20 x 1, 18 x 1) 0 St Mirren -1 Dunfermline (18 x 1) -1 Gretna (18 x 1)* -1 Hearts (18 x 1) -1 Kilmarnock (20 x 1, 18 x 2) -1 Livingston (18 x 1) -1 Ross County (18 x 1) *In Gretna's case, it was reported this was deliberate since home games were costing them money and it wasn't clear they would definitely fulfil all their fixtures. Someone would have needed to lose a home game, so it made sense to be them. All the evidence we need that this fucking tinpot country runs its tinpot league to the benefit of Aberdeen and Hibs, while trying to keep the Heart of Midlothian down. Makes our triumphs all the sweeter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eder Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 12 hours ago, ahemps said: One thing is absolutely certain is that you or Rangers will never have 20 away fixtures. It has happened to numerous others but will never happen to either of you two. The perks of being part of the establishment. I remember the year after Clarke left Killie and the top 6 was quite different from the year before with Motherwell and Livi replacing Hearts and Killie. Rangers had played all the other top 5 at home twice and if it wasn't for Covid cancelling the season it would have led to a headache for the SPFL. At least 2 of the remaining 5 would have had to go to Ibrox for a 3rd time (maybe a 3rd if Rangers were on 17 away games at the time of the split). I doesn't matter which club it happens to, its wrong in any league set up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eder Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 9 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: Sorry, you'll need to explain this. Also, gates can't be far off being about as good as they've ever been in the modern era. Do we need to improve gates? Can we? Th sad reality for Hearts is even if you win th Scottish Cup and go on to have a successful time in Europe next season and beyond, your crowds will bearly be affected as your owners have built in no room for growth. So no wonder you are wanting this explained. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 11 hours ago, Eder said: Th sad reality for Hearts is even if you win th Scottish Cup and go on to have a successful time in Europe next season and beyond, your crowds will bearly be affected as your owners have built in no room for growth. So no wonder you are wanting this explained. What are you on about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoP Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 26 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: What are you on about? I think it’s a fair point, the new main stand could have been moved back a bit Would have allowed a decent pitch width and given room for future corner sections to increase capacity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 minutes ago, MarkoP said: I think it’s a fair point, the new main stand could have been moved back a bit Would have allowed a decent pitch width and given room for future corner sections to increase capacity It's not a fair point. Hearts extensively looked at the options for what can be done with Tynecastle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 On 02/04/2024 at 23:48, Eder said: We should go to PL1 and PL2 both with ten teams that would greatly increase gates and overall interest as the majority of games would mean something. A bigger prize pot spread among the top 20 which should be supplemented with a decent TV contract. You still haven't explained this. Why would PL1 and PL2 with ten teams greatly increase gates and overall interest? Why would it lead to a better tv contract? There's no basis for any of this at all. It's like saying I'm going to have a sandwich for lunch and that'll mean it won't rain tomorrow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 On 03/04/2024 at 16:16, craigkillie said: *In Gretna's case, it was reported this was deliberate since home games were costing them money and it wasn't clear they would definitely fulfil all their fixtures. Someone would have needed to lose a home game, so it made sense to be them. Gretna's post-split fixtures in 2007-08 were manipulated to help them see out the season due to the costs of staging games at Motherwell. They were only given 1 home & 4 away games... they were given 4 aways in a row then finished with the solitary home against Hearts (who were the only opponent liable to bring a decent crowd)... it was also played 4 days before the rest of the Bottom 6 finished... none of which has happened on any other occasion IIRC. My recollection is that it also later emerged they'd been advanced 2 seasons worth of parachute payments early (i.e. for 2008-09 and 2009-10 if they hadn't come back up); more information about this unexpectedly emerged in spring 2020 during 'loangate'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoP Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 11 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: It's not a fair point. Hearts extensively looked at the options for what can be done with Tynecastle. Fair do’s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: You still haven't explained this. Why would PL1 and PL2 with ten teams greatly increase gates and overall interest? Why would it lead to a better tv contract? There's no basis for any of this at all. It's like saying I'm going to have a sandwich for lunch and that'll mean it won't rain tomorrow. Get the sandwiches up to Dundee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eder Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: It's not a fair point. Hearts extensively looked at the options for what can be done with Tynecastle. Hopelessly under sold themselves. Ended up with a smaller ground than Hibs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eder Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 14 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: You still haven't explained this. Why would PL1 and PL2 with ten teams greatly increase gates and overall interest? Why would it lead to a better tv contract? There's no basis for any of this at all. It's like saying I'm going to have a sandwich for lunch and that'll mean it won't rain tomorrow. If there are only ten teams in league there would be less opportunities for Ross Co, Livingston, Hamilton etc that bring the overall average down, to be in top league. If the traditionally better supported clubs play each other 4 times rather than 3 in the split league format eg. Hibs v Hearts that isn't guaranteed 4 matches per season, although accepted either would have a greater chance of going down, would generally mean averages attendances go up. Sorry didn't think it was difficult to work out. Edited April 4 by Eder 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 6 hours ago, Eder said: If there are only ten teams in league there would be less opportunities for Ross Co, Livingston, Hamilton etc that bring the overall average down, to be in top league. If the traditionally better supported clubs play each other 4 times rather than 3 in the split league format eg. Hibs v Hearts that isn't guaranteed 4 matches per season, although accepted either would have a greater chance of going down, would generally mean averages attendances go up. Sorry didn't think it was difficult to work out. So you’re not talking about actually increasing attendance, just restructuring a league to fudge statistics? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) How splits are shaping-up Europe-wide: Austria: Belgium: Bulgaria: Cyprus + tier 2: Czech Republic: Denmark + tier 2: Finland + tier 2: Gibraltar: Greece + tier 2: Iceland: Israel + tier 2: Malta tier 2: Moldova + tier 2: Northern Ireland + tier 2: Romania + tier 2: Scotland: Serbia + tier 2: Slovakia: Switzerland: Ukraine tier 2: Wales: Edited April 11 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonam Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 I like the league split tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 On 04/04/2024 at 22:53, Eder said: If there are only ten teams in league there would be less opportunities for Ross Co, Livingston, Hamilton etc that bring the overall average down, to be in top league. If the traditionally better supported clubs play each other 4 times rather than 3 in the split league format eg. Hibs v Hearts that isn't guaranteed 4 matches per season, although accepted either would have a greater chance of going down, would generally mean averages attendances go up. Sorry didn't think it was difficult to work out. How do you work that one out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 I remember the post split for 2009/10 season. Dempster turned up at Doncaster’s office looking for the fixtures. Doncaster - ah Motherwell, Top six, well done, we weren’t expecting that. Dempster - oh! Doncaster - we have had to move some things around Dempster - that’s fine, 3 home games and 2 away, we don’t mind what order they are in Doncaster - you see, we can only give you 2 more home games, making 18 Dempster - ah well, at least one of them is Celtic, we will get a good crowd in for that one Doncaster - the thing is, you will play Celtic and Rangers away, you get United and Hibs at home Dempster - oh well, United and Hibs will bring good crowds on a Saturday afternoon Doncaster - you play Hibs midweek Dempster - f**k off 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 On 11/04/2024 at 21:50, HibeeJibee said: Belgium: Interesting that Belgium use Wins as the first tie-breaker, then goal difference, goal scored, On 11/04/2024 at 21:50, HibeeJibee said: Slovakia: Slovakia do H2H points. i.e the teams that tie on points are ranked vs their performances against the other tied team in a mini league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.